Warner Bros. Copyright Trolling Customers Of Non-Six Strikes ISPs

from the but-of-course dept

One point that people have pointed out concerning the US's "six strikes" agreement between ISPs and Hollywood, is the fact that it only covers a group of the largest ISPs, but there are a fair number of other, smaller, independent ISPs. Apparently, however, Hollywood has decided that it will go after users on those ISPs as well, and will go after them more aggressively -- by demanding cash from them. Basically, Warner Bros. has teamed up with a company called Digital Rights Corp., which is sort of a "slightly more legit" form of copyright trolling -- demanding licenses from people they accuse of infringement.

“Yes. Warner Bros. is working with Digital Rights Corp on a test ISP/subscriber notification program to many ISPs that are not participating in the Copyright Alert System,” a Warner spokesman told TorrentFreak.

[....]
“The notices give consumers an opportunity to settle the identified infringement for a very nominal sum of $20 per title infringed–not as a measure of damage, but as a concrete reminder that our content has value and as a discouragement of future unauthorized activity.”

This is nefarious on multiple levels, because it actually treats the consumers of alternative ISPs worse than customers of ISPs who agreed to sell out those customers to Hollywood.

As TorrentFreak notes, it's not clear that Warner Bros. can or would actually do anything if you don't pay such a demand. But, if you do pay, it appears they go back to you seeking more:

After the initial payment, Rights Corp matched the notified (and settled) infringement with two others already on file. Since the guy had filled in his phone number, the company then called him up and asked for another $40.00 to clear his file.

This certainly sounds like copyright trolling, along the lines of Prenda, but at a slightly cheaper level.

I have a nagging feeling this is going to show up as an example of the six strikes plan "working". If they focus on the amount of settlements as evidence of infringement and only go after people not covered by the plan, then they can refer to the settlements as "evidence" that the six strikes plan successfully reduced infringement.

Interesting...

Given they are only going after those people who's ISP's aren't part of the six-strikes system they bought into place, I can't help but think they are trying to get enough people to switch ISP's to those that are part of the six-strikes system, and which don't send out shakedown letters, that their current ISP's will cave in and 'join' just to retain their current customers.

In other words, if you're not with one of the six strikes programs you're more fucked because the ISP has no actual recourse against this type of tactic, due to the sheer volume of lawyers and money it would take to defend against it should they decide to settle it in court?

This reminds me rather handily of the old days in Chicago, when you had to pay mob bosses to keep people off of your back, except instead of being 'illegal' it's 'within the probability of law.'

Speculative Invoicing

Re:

AC asshole trolls hate it when due process is enforced and evidence is required.

Enforce copyright by all means, just don't use mafia extortion tactics to do it. Found an infringer? Take it to court, with evidence. After a fair hearing, due process and right to defence, nobody here will complain.

Re: Interesting...

Maybe. Perhaps they're just learning from previous mistakes. They're certainly unwilling to let customers of those ISPs "get away" with anything just because their ISPs have principles. So, they're adjusting their tactics and just using those tactics on those they haven't already got covered by other tactics.

A lot of the pushback against previous extortion attempts have been due to the amount being requested. "Pay us $3000 or go to court and pay even more" is not only a scare tactic, but that amount of money is ridiculous and disproportionate to the actual damages any activity is likely to have cause in any realistic sense.

However, "we think you did something wrong, pay us $20"? That's not only more realistic (the cost of a DVD or two), but is far less immediately offensive when they inevitably start sending these notices to children, the dead and people who are completely innocent.

So, this way they have both bases covered, and are less likely to face comeback even in those cases where the innocent are targeted (unlike the bigger demands, it's likely to cost far more than the $20 to get it dismissed and so only the most single-mindedly principled will even bother).

Hmm... Only $20...

This could prove to be very interesting in the long run. They could be in the process of seriously kneecapping themselves should they decide to seriously go after someone for infringement and request high statutory damages. The defense can then easily argue that Warner Bros. has already placed a dollar value on infringement of their works, $20 a pop, it will be hard for them to claim higher dollar amounts in front of a jury.

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Trolling vs. Extortion

Can they actually do that in the US?

I know lots of debt collection agencies threaten that in the UK but they actually have no way of doing that without taking you to court and getting a CCJ which may not actually affect your credit rating at all anyway.

Re: Re:

What infringement of company? If you have bought the domain name and is in process of com joining companies to help save the companies and help the economy have a break and more jobs for the business. This seems way too much assumption it goes both ways if there is proof then what I'd the problem? DNA DOESN'T LIE NEITHER WHAT PROFITS FROM THE RELATIONSHIP IT'S A PRIVATE MATTER LETS FOCUS ON POSITIVE THKNGS INSTEAD OF JUMPING TO THE CLIENTS WORST FEAR UNTIL PROOF WAS COLLECTED : note : don't know if I'm speaking of the right commentary! Just want to help nothing else

it also shows the entertainment industries will do whatever they can think of to make out that customers are criminals, even acting as criminals themselves. i wonder how long before someone takes this practice to court? the 'evidence' being used is no different to what the six strikes evidence is, all based on an IP address which has been said by many judges as not a person!

Re: Speculative Invoicing

So, Warner Brothers just confessed to spamming.

They are sending (1) unsolicited (2) bulk (3) email which is the correct (and ONLY correct) definition of spam.

I'll see what I can do about having them blacklisted. After all, why they're spamming is irrelevant. What they're spamming is irrelevant. How they're spamming is irrelevant. The fact that they've publicly confessed to it is very relevant.

Re: Food for thought

Mr. Masnick may or may not hate how copyright is or when it is enforced we may never know, but pirates numbers are not going down for some strange reason and I very much doubt that, he or you has anything to do with that.

Is a natural phenomena, a very interesting phenomena, why would so many people disregard the law as written, people of all walks of life, that don't even communicate or organize?

There is something fundamental about piracy, something primordial that you try to deny it.

Hollywood is acting above the law. Since when did the American people decide that Hollywood had the authority to monitor what people are doing online and impose penalties (i.e. extortion)? How did they acquire extra-judicial powers?

Mike and Torrentfreak trolling for fanboy outrage.

The item ends with this:
"Have you received a Rights Corp notice? If so, please forward them to the usual address in complete confidence."

But does say this: The company is not operating a scam, even if some people do find their activities unsavory.

"The warnings and demands for settlement are being tagged onto the end of regular DMCA notices and forwarded by ISPs. What this means is that although Warner and Rights Corp are managing to get a message to an account holder, they have absolutely no idea who that alleged infringer is. This means that if the account holder refuses to pay, itís almost certain that no further action will be taken."

This non-scam basically relies on guilty conscience. You fanboys don't know what that means.

Now, as to points about "law": Copyright is well based on common law: I made it, so I own it. Society -- adult society -- recognizes that the producers of even entertainment should be rewarded when their products are enjoyed. The overall DUE PROCESS includes PAYING for what you use. But fanboys here want to skip the DUE PROCESS society has set up to cover copyright and get content for free. They rely on the fact that producers are unable to effectively enforce their DUE RIGHTS against large numbers of petty thieves. And now when a pirate is caught and attempt is made to charge a reasonable de facto fine of $20, why the fanboys are still outraged.

Re: Re: @ PaulT": "Enforce copyright by all means,"

YES, at last you agree! ENFORCE COPYRIGHT. -- BY ALL MEANS including emails asking thieves to pay up! ... Oh, wait. What YOU mean by "enforce" is every damn petty little thievery must go through lengthy and costly full court trial:
"Found an infringer? Take it to court, with evidence. After a fair hearing, due process and right to defence, nobody here will complain."

That's simply impractical. You're relying on huge obstacles to de facto legalize theft. Since you admit that copyright is valid, let's try to keep it proportional to offense, as this very scheme attempts.

Yeah, I left out your false assertion: "just don't use mafia extortion tactics to do it." This is clearly not.

Now, I repeat from my post with different emphasis:The overall DUE PROCESS includes PAYING for what you use. But fanboys here want to skip the DUE PROCESS society has set up to cover copyright and get content for free. They rely on the fact that producers are unable to effectively enforce their DUE RIGHTS against large numbers of petty thieves.

Re: Mike and Torrentfreak trolling for fanboy outrage.

The doctrine was repudiated by the courts in the United Kingdom (Donaldson v. Beckett, 1774) and the United States (Wheaton v. Peters, 1834). In both countries, the courts found that copyright is a limited right created by the legislature under statutes and subject to the conditions and terms the legislature sees fit to impose.

In the case of the US is even more important because it aligns itself with the constitution, which is what granted the power to congress to actually grant monopolies to others.

Re: Re: Mike and Torrentfreak trolling for fanboy outrage.

"That common law assertion was found lacking by US courts as others have pointed out repeatedly to you in the past."

Lacking? No, common law is still valid. I made it, therefore I own it, you do NOT. It's that simple, and will be valid forever.

In any event, common law has only been clarified and fortified by statute. The WHOLE field of copyright is based on "I made it therefore I own it". Your "pointed out" is simply another assertion. I require you to show where "I made it, so I own it" is invalid, not just try to dismiss it with an assertion that the assertion has been "proved" in the past.

Besides, that you guys keep confusing The Rich going to excess with the simple principles of copyright. If you'd rail against The Rich and the statutes they've bought, you'd get further. By trying to undermine simple and obvious common law, you serve The Rich, not the people.

) The special provisions in law for copyright stem from the above 2 facts. It's specific setting out of "intellectual property" rights for creating works given the relative ease of copying.

) Copyright specifies WHO can gain money from the works, AND that no one else is to gain money from them. (For a limited time, but after in public domain, it's still unethical to grift on the work of others; ONLY the cost of reproduction should be charged.)

) Copyright law is indeed exactly to prevent copiers and the general public from copying works (during the limited time). The societal agreement is that only creators can attempt to gain from it during that (limited) period.

) There are NO rights whatsoever granted to or held by copiers. No one's "right to copy" is at any time removed or diminished because it never exists prior to the creation of a work.

) Machines doing the labor of copying doesn't confer any new right to do so.

) Copyright has a worthwhile societal purpose to encourage the creation of various works, even if only for trivial entertainment.

) Even indirect income from in any way providing "for free" the protected work of others is clearly illegal, immoral, and unethical.

) Putting an entire digital movie / music files online for anyone to download is NOT sharing, not fair use, nor fair to its creators; it does remove some degree of potential profit and some degree of actual profit.

) Copying rights are granted by the public for the public good (or was until unilaterally changed by moneyed interests) and we all have a general duty to respect the special provisions made for creators.

) Possession of authorized physical media is license to access the content any number of times (which can be one-at-a-time library use, yet not "public" display). In the absence of physical media, there's no clear right to access content, only perhaps an authorized temporary permission. But at no time does possession of digital data confer a right to reproduce it outside of the terms and conditions as for physical media, no matter how easy it is to do so.

) Emphasizing an aspect of the just above point: digital data is even less "owned" by the purchaser than with physical media, not more.

) When independently rendered, fashion "ideas", "art" in general, "look and feel", jokes, bits of wit, and musical "riffs" are not copyright-able because not significant effort. Don't throw those in to confuse the topic. (Specific clarification for music: you may play "stolen" riffs to parody or add spice, but not use actual "sampled" audio as basis for your main theme.)

) Many persist in using the canard of "copyright can't guarantee income". -- Misleading. The older body of copyright (beginning in the US Constitution) was to guarantee creators a monopoly on the ATTEMPT at income from a given work for a limited time period. No one else has the right to even MAKE such attempt.

) Nothing above is invalidated or weakened by results being imperfect, nor by attempts to indefinitely extend time and scope of copyright: the latter are driven by greed and should of course be resisted, but by more general means.

OH, BY THE WAY: Rapidshare is in trouble!

RapidShare lays off most of its staff as it struggles to find new business model

Their business model was to GRIFT OFF what they didn't produce. So, pirates, it's YOU who need a "new business model", NOT the one that's been around since the Vikings, of waiting for others to produce, then you go steal it.

Re: Re: Re: @ PaulT": "Enforce copyright by all means,"

The overall DUE PROCESS includes PAYING for what you use.

ORLY?

Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due-process violation, which offends against the rule of law. - Wikipedia

Now that we've covered what due process actually is, let's examine the demerits of the rest of your rant.

But fanboys here want to skip the DUE PROCESS society has set up to cover copyright and get content for free.

"Society?" Blue, society did not set up the copyright regime we have now. Hollywood was the main driver of the upward ratcheting.

In any case, the infringer/thief trope has already been debunked many times AND if you look through the Business Models tags here on TD you will find Mike et al PROMOTING new ways for creators to be paid for their work.

They rely on the fact that producers are unable to effectively enforce their DUE RIGHTS against large numbers of petty thieves.

They've got Prenda, don't they? No wonder you freak out when Mike and the others write about it.

Re: Mike and Torrentfreak trolling for fanboy outrage.

Now, as to points about "law": Copyright is well based on common law: I made it, so I own it.

If you made it in a vacuum and its origins can't be traced back to someone else's work, you might *just* have a case.

Society -- adult society -- recognizes that the producers of even entertainment should be rewarded when their products are enjoyed.

What, every time? Because that's where we're headed. Some time in the future the DRM may limit us to a certain amount of viewings, after which we will be charged again.

Remember Kirtsaeng?

The overall DUE PROCESS includes PAYING for what you use. But fanboys here want to skip the DUE PROCESS society has set up to cover copyright and get content for free. They rely on the fact that producers are unable to effectively enforce their DUE RIGHTS against large numbers of petty thieves.

Debunked in an earlier reply. tl;dr: you're talking out of your ass.

And now when a pirate is caught and attempt is made to charge a reasonable de facto fine of $20, why the fanboys are still outraged.

Because IP address is no indicator of WHO did the downloading, etc. This is why old and even dead grannies have been accused of infringement.

Re: Re: Re: @ PaulT": "Enforce copyright by all means,"

"What YOU mean by "enforce" is every damn petty little thievery must go through lengthy and costly full court trial:"

Reading comprehension and logic are still your enemy, it seems. Are you actually saying that presenting evidence and having a chance to defend yourself is only achieved with a full court trial? Or are you admitting that the amount supposedly lost through piracy is so small that it's not worth trying to retrieve if you're forced to play fair (remember, these are not guilty people - your team regularly attacks innocent people).

"The overall DUE PROCESS includes PAYING for what you use. But fanboys here want to skip the DUE PROCESS society has set up to cover copyright and get content for free. "

Oh dear, still too stupid to understand what's being said, huh?

The DUE PROCESS is that a person is PROVEN to have broken the law and is given a chance to defend themselves.

What you support is that people are punished based on ACCUSATIONS, and are given no defence.

That's extortion - a CRIME - that you support because your corporate gods find it too difficult to actually present evidence. Sorry, your bullshit still doesn't fly. You don't get to violate the rights of others just because you suspect that they are violating yours.

"They rely on the fact that producers are unable to effectively enforce their DUE RIGHTS against large numbers of petty thieves."

No, you rely on lies and fiction to defend the otherwise indefensible actions of a few large corporations against people who have not yet been proven to have broken any law.

Re: Re: Re: @ PaulT": "Enforce copyright by all means,"

"That's simply impractical. You're relying on huge obstacles to de facto legalize theft. Since you admit that copyright is valid, let's try to keep it proportional to offense, as this very scheme attempts."

Bwhahahahaha good one! Oh wait, you were serious? Ok then, please enlighten us as to how $2 million dollars is "proportional" to the offense of sharing 12 songs? I'd love to hear what represents reasoning from that garbage-heap you call a mind.

Re: OH, BY THE WAY: Rapidshare is in trouble!

It's amazing that not even the most basic facts are making it through your thick skull. Your glee at service providers being shut down for things they have not done is only matched by your ignorance of the arguments in front of you in every thread.

Re: Re: Mike and Torrentfreak trolling for fanboy outrage.

@ "Pragmatic" the Pirate: "If you made it in a vacuum and its origins can't be traced back to someone else's work, you might *just* have a case."Many like to say that copyright exists until a creation is shared with others -- then jeer: after that you've no claim to it! Then anyone can take the work that you did and try to wring out its value for themselves. But no one will say that laborers don't have a right to the fruits of their labor. -- Copyright is the SAME common law, fundamental recognition of who's due the rewards, except applies to non-material products: the author puts in work with hopes of profits, and the public more or less guarantees a monopoly for a limited time so that the very potential for rewards isn't stolen by grifters.

Re: Re: OH, BY THE WAY: Rapidshare is in trouble!

@ "PaulT": "service providers being shut down for things they have not done" -- YOU UNWITTINGLY speak truly there. Yeah, I'm happy that Rapidshare is losing jobs that were based on "things they have not done" such as fund, produce, or in any way pay for the content they're selling.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Trolling vs. Extortion

If they have enough information about you, they can report an unpaid debt to the credit rating agencies. There are no checks to determine a debt is valid unless you dispute it with the rating agency, and that's a serious hassle and entirely weighted in favor of the companies listing debts (since that's who pays the credit agencies). I had to dispute a "debt" from a power company who had me listed at some address I had never lived at and it was a total hassle and clusterfuck.

"And now when a pirate is caught and attempt is made to charge a reasonable de facto fine of $20...."

Nice try, but no. We don't allow corporations to accuse people of crimes and then act as judge and jury, slam the gavel down, and say, "you are hereby convicted and you owe me money." That's not our system of law. If a pirate has been "caught", as you allege, then we have a trial based on the evidence that is shared between the prosecution and the defense, and that trial is run by the state. That trial is not run by a corporation.

I can't wait until out_of_the_blue is accused of something he didn't do, and the police simply announce, "Well, he was accused of doing it, that is solid proof he did it, he needs to go to prison" and OOTB starts screaming his head off that a mere accusation is not proof, and wailing loudly that a penalty may not be assessed based on the mere accusation of something.

Re: Re: Re: Mike and Torrentfreak trolling for fanboy outrage.

If you believe in that, please defend your position the best way you can, use the law, use force, kill all pirates if you must, lets see where that gets you.

After almost 20 years of fighting pirates people like you don't appear to be able to show any progress at all, the same number of people pirating in the 90's are still there and then some, it actually expanded.

same as CEG

the only way warner bro's can find out who an internet subscriber is is through a subpoena or if you give them your information. these notices will be "attatchments" to dcma notices same as what CEG TEK has been doing with porn for years. if you ignore them then there is very little time warner can do as they have no idea who you are without filing a lawsuit and getting a subpoena for your information. overall these are designed to play on the downloader's morality and fear. $20 is not that much and lets be honest you should not be downloading these films illegally anyway. if the film/show is already available via a digital distribution system (amazon, and other video on demand services, hulu, netflix, crackle) then you should be paying for them or watching them with the commercials.

if they start filing lawsuits i will hate on them, but asking you to pay a reasonable sum for what you should have paid for is not all that bad. it all depends on how they word the letters and if they actually sue over this stuff. if it is just a nicely worded note saying "hey someone used your ip address to d/l our works if it was you please pay us, if it was not you there here are the steps you can take to secure your network." then realistically this is well within their rights and not all that bad.

Re: Re: Re: Mike and Torrentfreak trolling for fanboy outrage.

Many like to say that copyright exists until a creation is shared with others -- then jeer: after that you've no claim to it! Then anyone can take the work that you did and try to wring out its value for themselves. But no one will say that laborers don't have a right to the fruits of their labor. -- Copyright is the SAME common law, fundamental recognition of who's due the rewards, except applies to non-material products: the author puts in work with hopes of profits, and the public more or less guarantees a monopoly for a limited time so that the very potential for rewards isn't stolen by grifters.

Then don't try to make money from copying, it's that simple. Selling copies and relying on people *not* copying the work so only you can relies on promoting the fiction that only you can *make* copies, which is demonstrably untrue.

Sell actual scarcities, not pretend ones, and you will be able to make money, as Amanda Palmer, et al, do.

Your argument is invalid because it relies on everyone going along with fiction instead of adapting to the facts. This is why you keep on trotting out your notions of a "common law" that does not and never will exist.

This is why we laugh at you and why you will never gain any followers, except perhaps among your fellow shills. The jeering will stop when you grow up and learn to accept reality. As it is, your refusal to accept reality is preventing you from learning anything from these discussions.

Re: Re: Re: Re: @ PaulT": "Enforce copyright by all means,"

Re: same as CEG

Your comments would be fine if they weren't based on a number of falsehoods - such as the assertion that everybody who is receiving these notices has done anything to deserve receiving them.

""hey someone used your ip address to d/l our works if it was you please pay us, if it was not you there here are the steps you can take to secure your network."

...and if you have secured your network, but their information is shitty and they're targeting the wrong IP address (as has happened numerous times)? Or the neighbour next door has cracked your password and is downloading without your knowledge? Or someone is spoofing your IP? Or the studio has misidentified a perfectly legal file as infringing? What then?

This is why a right to defend against these allegations is paramount. Otherwise, it's just extortion with no incentive to actually target people who are doing things wrong.

Still, it is nice for them to finally admit that they're not losing hundreds of thousands of dollars from each person actually pirating. They could have saved a decade of pointless fighting if they had admitted this instead of bolstering opposition with their ridiculous demands, but hey...

" you should not be downloading these films illegally anyway. if the film/show is already available via a digital distribution system (amazon, and other video on demand services, hulu, netflix, crackle) "

...and if they're not? I don't have figures, but I'll bet you that the majority of content being downloaded is content that's being deliberately withheld from those channels.

"if you ignore them then there is very little time warner can do as they have no idea who you are without filing a lawsuit and getting a subpoena for your information."

That's pretty telling and a large part of the problem. They're demanding payment before they've even correctly ascertained your identity. This isn't a problem to you? Remember that, no, IP addresses do not identify anybody, yet they're happy to demand money from people they think might be responsible? That's a bunch of crap.

Re: So, Warner Brothers just confessed to spamming.

Re: Re: same as CEG

it depends on if it's a DEMAND and if they pursue other meathods of collection based on their unreliable ip gathering meathods. to send letters that say "IF you did this please pay for it" is totally reasonable. to say "you are liable no matter what. look how much these other people had to pay from lawsuits! pay us or you will be next!!!omg!!11one" is extortion and completely unreasonable.

"and if you have secured your network, but their information is shitty and they're targeting the wrong IP address (as has happened numerous times)? Or the neighbour next door has cracked your password and is downloading without your knowledge? Or someone is spoofing your IP? Or the studio has misidentified a perfectly legal file as infringing? What then?"

then change your password and reset your cablemodem. if there is a possibuility that someone is misusing my network i would like to know. if they are not threatening you or pursuing other collection meathods than a DCMA letter then what is soo horrible?

"and if they're not? I don't have figures, but I'll bet you that the majority of content being downloaded is content that's being deliberately withheld from those channels."

most if not all new films are released via digital rental after they are released on dvd. the "what if they aren't available" is a more flawed arguement as most monitored torrents are recent releases and big films, all of which are hitting the didgital rental options. we are not talking about assilum movies here.

Re: Re: Re: same as CEG

Quote:

then change your password and reset your cablemodem. if there is a possibuility that someone is misusing my network i would like to know. if they are not threatening you or pursuing other collection meathods than a DCMA letter then what is soo horrible?

Translation: Fuck you and your inconvinience, you must protect me because I said so.
Answer: Screw you pal.

Quote:

most if not all new films are released via digital rental after they are released on dvd. the "what if they aren't available" is a more flawed arguement as most monitored torrents are recent releases and big films, all of which are hitting the didgital rental options. we are not talking about assilum movies here.

You do understand that even blockbuster gets windows don't you, some of those "windoes" are counted by years not months.

That window system is practically dead in the digital age deal with it, no self respecting pirate will go back to the way it was before in fact it may actually make it harder to move back to any paid option if the daft people managing those things don't do anything about it quick and by doing something I don't mean sending the goon squad to the homes of others.

Pirates don't care about how you view the world and how you think it should be, they don't share your tedious, defective morals either, they have their own equally tedious and defective morals and they have an advantage in that you are unable to actually force them to see it your way, this should be no surprise at all after almost 20 years trying to hunt them down with little to no effect in the direction of the piracy trends, you close one channel they find another, they don't give up and die for some reason and when they move they drag the industry kicking and screaming with it, which is kind of funny to watch.

All those connections, all that power and that system is being defeated by the likes of Jamie Thomas Rasset.

Re: Re:

This is easy to beat

Send a check, EXTREMELY IMPORTANT!
On the back in extremely tiny fine print:
"Cashing, deposit and\or acceptance of this check constitutes your legal agreement to the following in lue of any aforementioned letters agreements or legal actions instituted in behalf of who you are representing or any other entity involved in relation to this action. You shall remove any and all references to this issue from my credit files, court records and internal data bases associated with this action and all debts shall be considered paid in full and settled now and henceforth into the future. If you do not fully purge this issue you agree to being held liable in all aspects of this issue legally and financially in lue of any legal statute. By accepting this payment you are giving up all your rights to future defense of any type and accept full responsibility for your actions. This is a legal binding contract."

This is fully legal and binds them to a non negotiable contract. In addition theses checks they collect are generally automated deposit so they may not even know what's on the back. This check MUST be sent certified mail...You should pick a font that is very tiny and set op your laser printer to print on the back of the check in a light gray print..... ;)

How? What mystic power stops anyone else from doing it? When Og the Caveman invented fire, did Zeus 'zot' Ug when he copied it? Did Og bash Ug? What did Og do about Ig, Eg and Ag? Anyone can copy anything, and has as much right to as anyone has to create anything. What copyright does is restricts the rights of the copyers for a limited time to provide some incentive to people to create things that promote the science and useful arts.

) Creating is and has always been more difficult than copying.

So what? Creating is harder than destroying, too. Should there be a statutory control over breaking and destroying things? Sweat-of-the-brow arguments have been debunked. If you wish not only to create something but to monetise it, it's you responsibility to find a market that wants it and to charge a price that the market will bear. No-one is obligated to give you money just because you spent time and effort on something.

Also, the vast numbers of unpaid and 'unrewarded' content creators show the lie that only guaranteed money makes things get created.

) The special provisions in law for copyright stem from the above 2 facts. It's specific setting out of "intellectual property" rights for creating works given the relative ease of copying.

'Intellectual property' is a modern fiction that totally fails to distinguish how non-tangibles differ from actual tangibles, i.e. how non-scarcity compares to scarcity. Rights become necessary when the copiers have as much ability to copy as the creator does. Also, note how it was the publishing companies who pushed for the copyright statutes, *not* the content creators.

) Copyright specifies WHO can gain money from the works, AND that no one else is to gain money from them. (For a limited time, but after in public domain, it's still unethical to grift on the work of others; ONLY the cost of reproduction should be charged.)

Not a lot to argue about here, other than what is considered a 'limited time'. If retroactive term extensions, additions to items not originally covered, and 'limited times' longer than entire life-times are the norm, then why should the public uphold their side of the bargain.

I will point out that a) creators 'grift' on the work of others constantly, and b) a lot of other infrastructure 'grifts' on the work of creators. So at least some 'grifting' is ok. (i.e. book companies 'grift' on local taxpayers by using the roads to deliver books, and yet a tollbooth 'grifts' off those books being delivered.)

) Copyright law is indeed exactly to prevent copiers and the general public from copying works (during the limited time). The societal agreement is that only creators can attempt to gain from it during that (limited) period.

If it were only creators, how come those rights can be stolen, gifted or sold to others? How come there are 'work-for-hire' exceptions? Once corporations hold these 'creator' rights, what's to stop financial abuse? (Especially given their relative immortality.)

Again, my earlier point - 'limited' does not mean 'short compared to the age of the Earth'.

) There are NO rights whatsoever granted to or held by copiers. No one's "right to copy" is at any time removed or diminished because it never exists prior to the creation of a work.

Tell that to a book's publishers. And yes, everyone has a right to copy because they can. Ideas are 'free'. If Ug sees Og rubbing flint and tinder, he can copy it any time he likes. Only threat of force or being given a better offer ("if you stop making your own fire I'll make you a new spearhead") can stop Ug. Copyright is backed up by 'threat of force' - and look how well it's doing. It's certainly struggling to win any moral arguments, and it's totally failed on technological or legal control.

) Machines doing the labor of copying doesn't confer any new right to do so.

Humans doing the labour of creating doesn't entitle them to anything either. Bit of a straw man, (or rather obvious) this one. However, if machines exist to do something easily (and it could easily be sufficient manpower too) then you're going to have to find some way to stop people who have the incentive to copy anyway.

And where there is a risk of cultural heritage being lost, I would argue there is not only a moral right but a moral imperative to save it, even if it's not then used for 'profit'. (Oh noes, the library that copied that out-of-print audio recording is 'grifting' (making money) from the creator's hard work by selling coffee and making other audio material available!)

) Copyright has a worthwhile societal purpose to encourage the creation of various works, even if only for trivial entertainment.

No argument here, but then don't argue that your 'trivial entertainment' has some special 'moral existence/protection' or should be 'protected' for a gajillion years.

Also, protection ought to rely on active registration, so that truly monetised works can be protected, but unimportant stuff can enter the public domain. Even having a limited automatic protection with specific registration might improve things. Also, extended protection should cost more so that copyright limits are not 'age of Steamboat Willie + 1 year'.

) Even indirect income from in any way providing "for free" the protected work of others is clearly illegal, immoral, and unethical.

So radio makers are immoral? TV makers who sell their products to people who watch FTA material are breaking the law? PR departments who send out free CDs/MP3s are unethical?

'For free' is a relative term. Offering something for free to get something else is a time-honoured marketing method. Free samples, free-to-listen-to-get-your-valuable-attention, and so on.

In the end, obscurity kills products just as badly as rabid mispricing. Better that 10 people sample your product for free and like it (and thence telling others) than 10 people not giving a damn and ignoring it.

) Putting an entire digital movie / music files online for anyone to download is NOT sharing, not fair use, nor fair to its creators; it does remove some degree of potential profit and some degree of actual profit.

That *is* sharing, the same as buying it from iTunes. Whether it's 'nice' sharing is another matter.

Plenty of companies put stuff up for free, either to the world at large or to selected people. If your PR department sends an MP3 from your album to a music critic or posts it on a fan forum, has that really hurt you?

The loss of 'actual' profit could be debated and is certainly not simple. Potential profit is just that - you could as easily complain that Hurricane Sandy cost you 'potential profit'. It's up to you to turn potential profit to actual profit - and that relies on your product being worthwhile and well-known.

) Copying rights are granted by the public for the public good (or was until unilaterally changed by moneyed interests) and we all have a general duty to respect the special provisions made for creators.

This is quite reasonable. However, the balance on the conversation is too far towards the providers of the creations, and too far away from both the consuming public *and* the actual creators. When you have companies refusing to pay their own artists of what has already been sold, the whole system is out of whack. A 'pirate' may or may not have paid for a product or may or may not pay for it in the future - but if your label has sold your album but refuses you your cut, *that* is outright theft and/or fraud.

) Possession of authorized physical media is license to access the content any number of times (which can be one-at-a-time library use, yet not "public" display). In the absence of physical media, there's no clear right to access content, only perhaps an authorized temporary permission. But at no time does possession of digital data confer a right to reproduce it outside of the terms and conditions as for physical media, no matter how easy it is to do so.

Physical media supplies information - it shouldn't matter the format or even the physicality. And even then, digital media is 'physical', even if it's atoms in a particular magnetic state. Nowhere is there a distinction made that the public have less rights with 'non-physical' products than physical ones - and if anything, the original laws gave *creators* less rights for 'non-fixed' formats!

Also, if stuff is sold as a licence not a physical sale, then that needs to be made more clear, and artists should be renumerated accordingly and consistently.

Once I have digital (or even analogue) data, I can do what I like within my own environment. Unless you want a police state, if someone wants to 'copy' something they own for personal use, it's daft to try stopping them, and only leads to lack of respect for other copywrong restrictions.

Additionally, sharing is a basic building block of human society. If you want your product to bomb, please feel free to massively hinder people's ability to use, share or even discuss it.

If you wish to play the '"it's licensed, not owned" game, then I'll happily accept replacements for lost/broken product. Also in different formats, as I've bought the right to listen to that song/read that book. I'm happy to pay for actual format replacements or changes, but not for the whole thing again. So when my Queen cassette dies, I'll pay a pound for the CD replacement (since that's a fair price). When my VHS copy of Aliens is lost, I'll pay a pound for the DVD/Blu-ray. If Zune stops making my copy of 'Thriller' available on its servers, I expect to be able to get it from iTunes, Amazon or Google Play.

) Emphasizing an aspect of the just above point: digital data is even less "owned" by the purchaser than with physical media, not more.

Not only is that unfounded, but it's so stupidly impractical that I don't know where to start. Saying that I 'own' an iTune MP3 less than I own a song on an old cassette given the ease of copying one compared to the other is just ludicrous. Carry on Canute! If you must make assertions, then please give some actual basis for them.

Oh, and I therefore expect these 'more limited ownership' items to cost significantly less, especially when there is no physical item to have to produce/store/transport/print.

) When independently rendered, fashion "ideas", "art" in general, "look and feel", jokes, bits of wit, and musical "riffs" are not copyright-able because not significant effort. Don't throw those in to confuse the topic. (Specific clarification for music: you may play "stolen" riffs to parody or add spice, but not use actual "sampled" audio as basis for your main theme.)

Once again with the 'sweat-of-the-brow' crap, and in direct contradiction to your previous 'trivial entertainment' statement. Come on, try to be consistent, you were making a few good points for once!

Also, again with the artifical distictions ("stolen" riffs vs "sampled" audio - how are these distinct?). At what point does a sequence of musical notes (of which there are seven) or digital bits (of which there are two) become infringing or non-infringing?

Fair use exists for a reason. Otherwise by your logic someone could copyright the dictionary and stop anyone else from using any of the 'owned' words!

It also reads like you are implying that only corporation-sponsored creators are legitimate, or else why are the "independently rendered" compositions not 'copy-rightable'? Either everything needs to be registered or everything is automatically copyrighted. (Unless there are specifically delineated parameters for each.)

) Many persist in using the canard of "copyright can't guarantee income". -- Misleading. The older body of copyright (beginning in the US Constitution) was to guarantee creators a monopoly on the ATTEMPT at income from a given work for a limited time period. No one else has the right to even MAKE such attempt.

Copyright may guarantee income for some, but it does not and should not guarantee it for all. I agree with the latter part, again subject to a realistic limited time (with no evergreening or retroactive changes) and subject to ridiculous limits on others not being imposed (Edison invents a lightbulb, which means no-one else can make or improve even a differently designed lightbulb).

Bear in mind that ideas cannot be copyrighted, so it's only that specific iteration of the idea - Shakespeare cannot 'copyright' love tragedies during the copyright period of "Romeo and Juliet" (even if he could have).

) Nothing above is invalidated or weakened by results being imperfect, nor by attempts to indefinitely extend time and scope of copyright: the latter are driven by greed and should of course be resisted, but by more general means.

Actually, one-sided attempts to change the social deal that is copyright totally have a bearing on whether such rights are invalidated. If the public grant you the sole right to produce and/or sell your product and at the end of that time you manage to get the time not only extended, but that control applied to things that the public already could freely distribute, then the public should and would be perfectly at liberty to question or ignore your 'rights'. Sauce for the goose... because if the public attempt to vote away your rights, or even curb them in the slightest fashion, content controllers scream bloody murder. (Treaties for the blind, anyone?)

So all in all, I'll score you well for relative coherence and lack of name-calling, but poorly for general content and thinking ability. That's a C+, and I'm afraid there's no way you're the 'real' Blue.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike and Torrentfreak trolling for fanboy outrage.

You do understand that in the 1700's and 1800's there probably were no corporations in sight right?

Uhhh... except for the megacorps of the day, such as the East India Tea Company, who were so oppressive and had such heavy influence in government that a war was fought because of it, leading to the creation of the United States.

Re: @ PaulT": "Enforce copyright by all means,"

No. You don't get to shake down people for free. If your crusade is not worth the effort involved in a proper prosecution, then the answer isn't to bend the rules and make it easier for you.

YOU are the one that wants to skip due process.

YOU are the one that doesn't want to be bothered with following the rules. YOUR attempts to subvert the law are far more dangerous than the digital equivalent of jaywalking and spitting on the sidewalk.

Yes. Some crimes are worth less in absolute terms than the cost to prosecute them. Yet we still prosecute them. Actual shop lifting is a good example of this.

The fact that society at large doesn't want to pay your way is ultimately a reflection of democracy in action.

Re: Re: Food for thought

When a law criminalizes something deemed socially acceptable, you have a rise in crime. Prohibition teaches anyone willing to learn from history that much.

The only way to properly attack piracy is to make it SOCIALLY reprehensible, but instead all this legal persuit simply paints the IP holders in a negative light, inconveniences the consumer base, and further justifies piracy in the eyes of many.

Do you want to do business with someone routinely spraying their storefront with napalm just in case someone is shoplifting?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ PaulT": "Enforce copyright by all means,"

Re: Re: Re: @ PaulT": "Enforce copyright by all means,"

Off at a tangent once again. OOTB obviously wants total anarchy. No courts, no cases to hear, just take the suspects out and shoot 'em - no questions asked. I believe there was a guy called Hitler who pursued similar practices and we all know what happened to him. Grow, up, OOTB. You are becoming extremely tiresome.

Re: Re: Re:

Then you have selective memory and you're not understanding the major problem with this kind of thing (many of the people falsely identified will simply pay up because even though they're innocent it's still cheaper than fighting the case in court - thus you won't read about them).

Re: Re: Re: Mike and Torrentfreak trolling for fanboy outrage.

Re: Re: Interesting...

So, this way they have both bases covered, and are less likely to face comeback even in those cases where the innocent are targeted (unlike the bigger demands, it's likely to cost far more than the $20 to get it dismissed and so only the most single-mindedly principled will even bother).

It also probably costs more than $20 to send the notice, so this isn't about money. I guess they're hoping people stop infringing after they get one of these. More likely they look into ways to hide their infringement better.

Re:

In other words, if you're not with one of the six strikes programs you're more fucked because the ISP has no actual recourse against this type of tactic, due to the sheer volume of lawyers and money it would take to defend against it should they decide to settle it in court?

The ISP isn't the one being threatened, the user is. So I think you're right that they have no recourse, but it's because they're not an involved party.

Re: Re: Food for thought

Re: So, Warner Brothers just confessed to spamming.

They are sending (1) unsolicited (2) bulk (3) email which is the correct (and ONLY correct) definition of spam.

It depends on your definition of "bulk". Does that just mean more than a certain number of similar messages in a certain time frame? If there's an event that triggers each individual message to be sent, is that really bulk?

Re: Re: Re: Food for thought

Which confirms my own experience since none of the people I know stopped getting their pirate material fix, they just shifted it, more importantly they all buy CDs/DVDs/Blurays even knowing that they don't need too, they just like "owning" that crap for some reason and funier they all have rental cards and rent stuff also. Piracy for them is just another way to waste time, they see it on the pirate way, then go rent it and then they still buy it, OMFG what is wrong with those people?!

Except... you can't. Because Warner Bros. will quickly turn the unpaid "bill" over to a collection agency, and the collection agency will gladly ruin your credit rating over it. Never mind that you didn't do it. Never mind that they don't have any evidence that you did it. They'll still slam your credit rating into the toilet.

It's a horrible financial trap to get caught in, if the person cares about their credit rating at all.

Re: Re: Re: Mike and Torrentfreak trolling for fanboy outrage.

I made it, therefore I own it, you do NOT.

Then don't publish it. You seem to want it both ways: You want to claim "ownership" of a creative work, yet you also expect it to be propagated and become a part of national (if not global) culture. Trouble is, no one owns culture. It's yours, or it's the world's. Pick one.

Re:

These notices are submitted to via DMCA to the ISP, who then forward it to the customer associated with the IP address. Short of attempting to subpoena the ISP for the identity of the subscriber, they actually have no way of knowing the identity of the alleged infringer unless they attempt to make the payment.

In other words, ignoring it in this case would be the only sensible thing to do.

Re:

They are kidding

I'd be willing to pay the real value. Maybe .01 cent per track seeing as most new music will not have any lasting appeal or value.
Plus I already have multiple copies of most pre 90's music because of the never ending best of albums.
After a handful of week, if not days most new music can be purchased at give away prices from retailers, often at less than 50 cents per track.